The Hot Blog

AS a former print guy myself I must say bloggers aren't the enemy. The real enemies are, in no particular order, Craigslist, the fact that kids don't read and the shitty economy. Classified ads were papers bread and butter and now nobody picks up the paper to look for a job. People can barely read these days they mostly speak in text message and the economy is so bad that department stores and car dealerships, once the cash cows of newspapers no longer fill the vaults. PS McClatchy should have never bought Knight Ridder.

Funnily enough, an Old Media colleague and I were talking over drinks just yesterday, and we both agreed that, when the history of this period is written, it will be noted that, ironically, it wasn’t competition from the news sites, or even the showbiz sites, that economically devastated newspapers. Rather, it was competition from Craigslist and similar sites. When papers started losing the classified ads….

No, I am not joking.

Damn, tfresca. Great minds think alike.

Well, the newspaper biz had been running the same business model for a couple hundred years, never having to change with the times, never having to evolve by investing in R & D like companies in other industries.

Newspapers are failing because of their unwillingness to let go of an outdated business model and their incapability of figuring out a new one.

Yes, Craigslist was murderous.

But instead of major papers embracing new technology and leading the way 5 years ago, before blogs really existed, they have dragged their feet and become much more quickly irrelevant... as in, can you name one person who blogs for the LAT and isn't an already existing columnist?

The WSJ was the first great online effort, followed by the NYT. After that, it's been individuals who happen to be interesting.

Well, David, no offense, but the world is much larger than L.A. But, to be fair, your basic point is valid: There still are people in decision-making positions at newspapers -- and, perhaps more important, magazines -- who still don't get it. The odd thing is, as far back as the very early '80s, when I was at the Dallas Morning News, there already were people working on creating an on-line version of the paper. Unfortunately, the decision-makers and bean-counters decided that the project was not financially sound -- hey, who would want to read their newspaper on a computer? -- so the plug got pulled in 1982.

I've been reading newspapers since I was a kid and try to pick one up wherever I am. The thing that drives me crazy about this decline is that in order to save money they keep cutting the very thing that might attract readers -- content. I guess this is inevitable since no one is reading them and that by cutting back on reporters and bureaus you are saving money, but it seems like a slow form of suicide to me. It also depresses me to no end that most of my friends never, ever pick up a paper.

Thanks Joe. One thing that I think a lot of bloggers don't understand is that about 90 percent of the subjects they report about or more likely comment on start in newspapers. Most of these guys would shoot themselves in the e\head if they actually had to do reporting or sit in a meeting for four hours to get a ten inch story. It's like what I think about Rush Limbaugh, he rails against the liberal media but thy report stories all the time could be seen as supporting the views he belches out. I don''t think anybody is really ready for a world without newspapers.

I can't speak for everyone who writes reflections on the news... been doing it, as well as original reporting, analysis, and investigation, since before "blogs" existed. And I am 100% concious that commentary is impossible without someone actually doing some reporting.

But one of the ways that TM has been exposed, even to itself, is that so much of the "reporting" has been, in reality, coming from a small pool of reporters whose wire copy and NYT copy and WSJ copy not only defined the newscycle, but was rewritten as original.

There has been a lot more print than reporting for a long time. That doesn't mean there isn't great local reporting at many dailies. But how many reports from how many papers quoting the same press conference do we need? Opinion may often suck, but its popularity is because the news has become the baseline.

I honestly expect there to be 5 or 6 major reporting organizations by 2015 or so and shadows of papers past will be like bureaus of the collective.

And Joe... who said anything about LA being the only relevant place in the world? It was one example. Why pick fights for no reason?

David: Your very words: "[C]an you name one person who blogs for the LAT and isn't an already existing columnist?"

If you wanted your words to have larger meaning, you should have used words with larger meaning. Have you bothered to check if there are newspapers outside L.A. that employ non-staff bloggers? And BTW: I actually said you had a valid point.

LAT and others do hire non-staff bloggers. Not my point.

My point was that whatever small fame there is has been reserved by most papers for people who were already there and already known for that beat. David Carr is the only person I know of who is now best known for what is not his central work... which again, shows greater creativity and committment at NYT than at most other papers.

I'm sure there are a few examples around the country and I would be happy to know them. I would have to say that The Atlantic is spreading some spiritual wealth around. also. But my point is my point.

And my point about you, Joe, is that instead of saying, "It is happening somewhere in Texas and here who is getting famous via a TM website," you throw LA in my face as though that was a real issue. Maybe I shouldn't take it as though you are taking a shot, but you like taking your shots and they are often of this nature. My apologies if I misread you.

Apology accepted. And as you said: TM editors/publishers have an unfortunate tradition of being slow to catch up with changing times. I can remember -- no kidding -- trying to convince a features editor in the early '80s that the Dallas Morning News should cover home video more vigorously. I was told: Hey, those movies were reveiwed when they were in theaters, why should we waste space on writing about the VHS and Beta releases?

In other words -- as you have said, and I cannot disagree -- a lot of the problems facing newspapers today are problems that should have been foreseen.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: